We appreciate the enormous support that our ABestWeb community has experienced over the many years it has served its members and sponsors. We have decided to exit this business and have placed the property up for sale and we are actively entertaining interest.

In the meantime, community members will be able to read but not post to ABestWeb beginning on Jan. 18.

We want to thank you for your numerous contributions and your ongoing support. If you have any questions, please let us know.

A group of Web publishers filed suit in federal court this week against the scrappy Internet ad network Gator Corp., charging that Gator sells ads on their Web sites without authorization and pockets the proceeds.

"Gator Corp. is essentially a parasite that free rides on the hard work and investment" of the publishers, said the lawsuit, filed Tuesday by a dozen large publishers in U.S. District Court in Alexandria.

The irate publishers include The Washington Post Co., the New York Times Co., Dow Jones & Co., Tribune Interactive, Gannett Co., Knight Ridder Digital, Condenet and American City Business Journals Inc.

Best thing about this - these guys aren't the iab. They will sue and keep at it so there is a case to refer to, so they can sue more people. This may be the begining of the end for parasiteware.

Nice to see "publishers" doing such a good thing.

By the way if any of this seems wrong, could be construed as calling wurldmedia thieves or is somehow misrepresenting wurldmedia or buyersport in anyway - please call kurt (or is it curt?) at wurldmedia 518-691-1100 and ask him. I only put this since I was threatened that talking about parasiteware and not giving it a positive spin could be construed as being libelous, and since one of wurldemedia's biggest investor is some kind of big cop in New York state, they could sue me for saying anything that was not positive about wurldmedia and if ever in doubt I should refer people to kurt.

Chet

Oops have to add. That is only my opinion that wurldmedia deals in parasiteware and I may be wrong. Again if you have any questions on what wurldmedia does or is about refer to kurt.

Here Here ..sue the BBC for publishing this tid-bit.
"Record makers could win the right to carry out hack attacks on music sharing services if a US proposal becomes law.
Californian congressman Howard Berman has drawn up a bill that would legalise the disruption of peer-to-peer networks by companies who are trying to stop people pirating copyrighted materials.

If his idea becomes law, record companies will be able to carry out a variety of attacks on the sharing services to make them unusable or so irritating to use that people abandon them.

Existing legislation makes it an offence for anyone to carry out many of the attacks mooted in the proposal.

Better blockers

So far, music companies have used legal action to stop people spreading pirated pop through net-based peer-to-peer networks, such as Napster, Kazaa and Audiogalaxy.

Their attempts have largely been successful.

Napster has declared itself bankrupt and is trying to relaunch itself as a subscription service; Kazaa has run out of money to pay its mounting legal bills; and Audiogalaxy has agreed to remove copyrighted material from its network that it does not have permission to share.

However, legal action can take a long time to work and now Howard Berman, a democrat congressman for California, has proposed legislation that will let music makers act much more quickly.

Spoof tracks

His proposal would let the record makers carry out hacking-type attacks on sharing networks to protect copyrighted works.

If it became law, record companies would win the right to place spoof tracks on sharing services, block downloads, redirect people to non-existent files and launch attacks that disrupt the smooth running of the networks.

Some record labels have already been known to seed some networks with spoof tracks or adverts to try to stop people getting hold of music they have not paid for.

The law would also allow the record companies to place programs on the machines of peer-to-peer networks to let them trace who is pirating pop."

LOL Chet -
Let's remind them of the numerous recent legal precedents that persons bringing libel suits must prove there is intention of malice in the knowing dissemination of false information. Since it can be proven that the information is not false, we have proof of link interception - there is no libel. There is certainly no malice in the attempt to protect what was ours in the first place by organizing to change it. The only malice is in their infringement of your First Amendment Rights.

quote:In a similar court action earlier this month, one of Gator's advertisers, DietWatch.com, was ordered to stop displaying ads that appeared when Gator users visited rival site WeightWatchers.com. The court ordered DietWatch to pay $25,000 to Weight Watchers.

Now theres some essential reading for gator, kazaa and whenu advertisers!! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

I have a slightly different question to ask.
If, as they say, it is illegal for Gator to 'modify' my site by placing their content on it, would it also be illegal for an adblocker to modify the content of my site?

I mean, what is to prevent publishers from going after ad blockers with the idea that removing hyperlinks from the page I designed is modifying my content and not allowing me to make a living.....

I'm no lawyer, but what happens if there is a settlement out of court. What effect will that have on the next round of lawsuits that is sure to follow. Regardless, I'm sending that article to all of the politicians I've been in touch with...a sort of 'I told you so'

It doesnt matter if there is a settlement, you are missing the importance of the quote below. It would be a lot more scary to you if you where one of Gator's advertisers.

quote:In a similar court action earlier this month, one of Gator's advertisers, DietWatch.com, was ordered to stop displaying ads that appeared when Gator users visited rival site WeightWatchers.com. The court ordered DietWatch to pay $25,000 to Weight Watchers.

I wonder how keen gators advertisers would be after reading that? This puts all the companies and merchants that advertise with any parasiteware firms in jeapordy, It has become too dangerous to do business with them.

Guest....you are correct, and I don't know how I missed that quote. Your right on the money...

My original post about the settlement was a reference to things being quiet. In many settlements, the party (in this case, parasiteware) would admit no wrongdoing, so I worry about it in future cases...

That was my originial thought, but Guest pointed out the error. It doesn't matter what happens to the parasiteware legally, but merchants pulling the plug out of fear of being sued...that is even better [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]